Weekly Debrief

Battlefields we never played before

Elephante33
222 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
So this game was all about giving us battlefields that wernt really that well known or played much in other titles right? Cool cool cool, so how about we actually get more of those? 

I do get that the devs for this one are Scandinavian, but honestly, Im pretty sure the ''battles'' we see like Narvik and Fjell were done with so little people and of much smaller significance to the war than other less played battles like say,
The Battle of the Ardenne
The Battle for Antwerp
The Battle for Leningrad (I dont really remember many FPS games covering this one, more oftne than not they just took Stalingrad instead)
The Battle of Crete
The Battle for Singapore
The Battle for Sicily
The Landing in the South of France

I think i've made my point. I understand the desire to resuse resources and do things close to your heart, but come on! Give us something to actually chew on and get involved in while we wait for stuff that isnt a knife or a facepaint
There are probably alot more players out there emitionally attached to the battle of Antwerp than there are people attacked the Fjell.

Also not saying that the battle of Narvik was totally pointless, but when you read up on it, the experience you get in the game is hardly what happened

Comments

  • Noodlesocks
    2888 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 18
    I doubt we will see more of these "unknown battles" seeing how it has has proven to be a bit of a failure with the community.
     
    I do think it is a shame because I would loved to have seen the French in the game cause they are never done in WW2 games despite having so much potential for battle combinations. French vs Germans, French vs Italians, French vs Japanese, French vs British, French vs USA, French vs French.
  • ChickenTheTank
    341 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I thought the unknown battles idea was fib feelin the get go. I understand we've seen a lot odd the same WWII battles a bunch of times before.

    But we've never seen them done with the capabilities current tech offers feelin studios with as much production poweras DICE! Such a missed opportunity :(
  • Elephante33
    222 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    I doubt we will see more of these "unknown battles" seeing how it has has proven to be a bit of a failure with the community.
     
    I do think it is a shame because I would loved to have seen the French in the game cause they are never done in WW2 games despite having so much potential for battle combinations. French vs Germans, French vs Italians, French vs Japanese, French vs British, French vs USA, French vs French.
    yeah the French, and the Belgians too, we do see the French, or rather French colonials in the single player.
    Also I think if you really want to go for hidden battles, that time the Belgian garrison in the Congo crossed all of Africa just to punt the German and Italians on the other side should be one xD
  • grrlpurple
    803 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    By the time the Pacific arrives we will have had a whole year playing 'the fall of Europe' with only two factions on the battlefied. 🙄
  • full951
    2465 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 19
    Korean War please
  • M_Rat13
    1062 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    By the time the Pacific arrives we will have had a whole year playing 'the fall of Europe' with only two factions on the battlefied. 🙄

    Who knows, maybe they'll skip the USA and just show Britain vs Japan lol, to save time/resources. I wouldn't put it past them.
  • SlowOldWarrior
    451 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    We need to manage customer expectations to prevent further disappointment as experienced in BF5.  Limit the scale of future BF titles to something more in line with DICE's current talent level.

    BF:Caveman?
  • VincentNZ
    2923 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    Well Mercury is Crete. It does not really matter if we get well-known or obscure battles. It is the way they did it that is sub-optimal. It was marketed as bringing these battlefields to life so that you could feel the heat of battle all over the world, if it is Norway, Greece, Belgium or whatever else.
    What we got were maps in a certain biome of varying quality. Narvik could just as well be anywhere in Winter and Panzerstorm could just as well be in East Europe. Marita is just as generic as any urban map and Devastation could just be any city of Europe, whether you name it Rotterdam, Berlin, Vienna, Budapest, Hamburg, Aachen etc.. The map titles are interchangeable and therefore meaningless.
    There are no distinct features that identify the locations, apart from Rotterdam, I guess, although you would have to know the White House as a landmark. There is no context given, there is no narrative, there is no background or overlying structure connecting the maps. If you want to put locations into a spotlight then there are a thousand different ways to highlight them and make them stand out so they become a "star" for your game just like a D-Day map or whatever.

  • ninjapenquinuk
    1842 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Some people get a little to worked up about the 'well known' aspect of  the battles BF maps are meant to represent.  Its as if calling a city map Stalingrad instead of Devastation, or calling Panzerstorm, Kursk, would somehow magically make it 10 x better.  I do however agree DICE has handled the concept badly however.
  • Noodlesocks
    2888 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Some people get a little to worked up about the 'well known' aspect of  the battles BF maps are meant to represent.  Its as if calling a city map Stalingrad instead of Devastation, or calling Panzerstorm, Kursk, would somehow magically make it 10 x better.  I do however agree DICE has handled the concept badly however.
    It would not be enough to simply give a map the name. When it comes to these 'well known battles,' people have an idea in their head about how it should look and play. They have seen the movies and the TV shows or they have played older games that did those settings well and they want to play those scenes that they have in their head. Devastation without Red Square or the Volga River or Pavlov's house or any fixture or feature of that battle would not make a good Stalingrad map.
  • ChickenTheTank
    341 postsMember, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Well Mercury is Crete. It does not really matter if we get well-known or obscure battles. It is the way they did it that is sub-optimal. It was marketed as bringing these battlefields to life so that you could feel the heat of battle all over the world, if it is Norway, Greece, Belgium or whatever else.What we got were maps in a certain biome of varying quality. Narvik could just as well be anywhere in Winter and Panzerstorm could just as well be in East Europe. Marita is just as generic as any urban map and Devastation could just be any city of Europe, whether you name it Rotterdam, Berlin, Vienna, Budapest, Hamburg, Aachen etc.. The map titles are interchangeable and therefore meaningless.
    There are no distinct features that identify the locations, apart from Rotterdam, I guess, although you would have to know the White House as a landmark. There is no context given, there is no narrative, there is no background or overlying structure connecting the maps. If you want to put locations into a spotlight then there are a thousand different ways to highlight them and make them stand out so they become a "star" for your game just like a D-Day map or whatever.

    Some of what you said is true. I guess technically these maps could be anywhere.

    But they're not. For at least some maps DICE went to where the battles happened and scanned the geography. For others, they looked at pictures of the areas taken during war time. So while thar maps COULD be anywhere, DICE has gone ahead and designed them so that they ARE the area's we're told.

    Do some searching and you'll find a reddit/ forum thread that posted pics of Rotterdam, from the time of the war, that match up super close with the in game look. They did it for another map too, though I don't remember which.

    DICE has a pretty good track record anymore of matching real- life geography to in- game geography. The map of downtown LA in hardline is another ok example. That one got scretched a little due top the nature if the game though.
  • ninjapenquinuk
    1842 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Some people get a little to worked up about the 'well known' aspect of  the battles BF maps are meant to represent.  Its as if calling a city map Stalingrad instead of Devastation, or calling Panzerstorm, Kursk, would somehow magically make it 10 x better.  I do however agree DICE has handled the concept badly however.
    It would not be enough to simply give a map the name. When it comes to these 'well known battles,' people have an idea in their head about how it should look and play. They have seen the movies and the TV shows or they have played older games that did those settings well and they want to play those scenes that they have in their head. Devastation without Red Square or the Volga River or Pavlov's house or any fixture or feature of that battle would not make a good Stalingrad map.
    Exactly, and thats been part of the argument about DICE's take on WW2 from the beginning.  People have a view of what WW2 is from TV, film, pics etc.  A good map is a good map, and a poor map is a poor map, it doesnt matter what its called. Id rather a good generic city map, then a poor Stalingrad representation.
  • VincentNZ
    2923 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, BF1IncursionsAlpha, Battlefield V Member
    VincentNZ wrote: »
    Well Mercury is Crete. It does not really matter if we get well-known or obscure battles. It is the way they did it that is sub-optimal. It was marketed as bringing these battlefields to life so that you could feel the heat of battle all over the world, if it is Norway, Greece, Belgium or whatever else.What we got were maps in a certain biome of varying quality. Narvik could just as well be anywhere in Winter and Panzerstorm could just as well be in East Europe. Marita is just as generic as any urban map and Devastation could just be any city of Europe, whether you name it Rotterdam, Berlin, Vienna, Budapest, Hamburg, Aachen etc.. The map titles are interchangeable and therefore meaningless.
    There are no distinct features that identify the locations, apart from Rotterdam, I guess, although you would have to know the White House as a landmark. There is no context given, there is no narrative, there is no background or overlying structure connecting the maps. If you want to put locations into a spotlight then there are a thousand different ways to highlight them and make them stand out so they become a "star" for your game just like a D-Day map or whatever.

    Some of what you said is true. I guess technically these maps could be anywhere.

    But they're not. For at least some maps DICE went to where the battles happened and scanned the geography. For others, they looked at pictures of the areas taken during war time. So while thar maps COULD be anywhere, DICE has gone ahead and designed them so that they ARE the area's we're told.

    Do some searching and you'll find a reddit/ forum thread that posted pics of Rotterdam, from the time of the war, that match up super close with the in game look. They did it for another map too, though I don't remember which.

    DICE has a pretty good track record anymore of matching real- life geography to in- game geography. The map of downtown LA in hardline is another ok example. That one got scretched a little due top the nature if the game though.

    Yeah and I believe that. I have seen the Rotterdam photos, too and that is cool. However nobody knows about the lavender fields of the Provence, or the **** fields near Arras, because other than the name the game tells us nothing about the maps. I recall in BF2 there were loading screens explaining the Operation Name and the map in quite some detail. Suddenly there was context. Now I am not saying people read that a whole lot, but there was a narrative towards it that explained the conflict and therefore gave the maps, that were just as generic, depth.
    Other than the name, the maps of BFV have no context or depth. Oh there are battleships on Narvik, but why they are there, or what the purpose of the offensive is, nobody knows, unless you play GO, which has a population of whooping three severs last time I checked.
    If you went through all the trouble to design locations after their real-life counterpart than tell the audience about it and do so frequently. Otherwise it is a waste of resources.
  • Elephante33
    222 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    edited September 19
    Some people get a little to worked up about the 'well known' aspect of  the battles BF maps are meant to represent.  Its as if calling a city map Stalingrad instead of Devastation, or calling Panzerstorm, Kursk, would somehow magically make it 10 x better.  I do however agree DICE has handled the concept badly however.
    It would not be enough to simply give a map the name. When it comes to these 'well known battles,' people have an idea in their head about how it should look and play. They have seen the movies and the TV shows or they have played older games that did those settings well and they want to play those scenes that they have in their head. Devastation without Red Square or the Volga River or Pavlov's house or any fixture or feature of that battle would not make a good Stalingrad map.
    Exactly, and thats been part of the argument about DICE's take on WW2 from the beginning.  People have a view of what WW2 is from TV, film, pics etc.  A good map is a good map, and a poor map is a poor map, it doesnt matter what its called. Id rather a good generic city map, then a poor Stalingrad representation.
    You are absolutly right @ninjapenquinuk , but remember, actually knowing stuff about a map makes it that much more intereseting and easy to slip in. If i gave you a good map about an air raid on a harbour, you'd like and it would be fun, and if you are so inclined you'd make your own narrative. But what if i gave you instead the Raid on Pearl Harbour? Now the scales are rampped all the way up there because you KNOW whats at stake.

    And thats what made people love BF 1942 so much. It wasnt a perfect game, it just had good maps of good places people are passionate about, and could GET passionate about. The Fall of France and Belgium are def places like this but we are playing as the BRITISH. Tell me the last time someone was passionate in CoD4 when pulling out of Iraq, you didnt give a ****, because its not the land your character is from, its just yet another desert place. And thats the issue that this current BF is having. Well, one of many.

    And for this reason it would be nicer to have not only more factions but more maps related to these factions. Give us the battle around Dunkirk, with FRENCH uniforms, as it was. Give us the Gold Beach, give us Singapore, give us things to be attached to, thats all we ask. Well, that and some other stuff xD
  • Elephante33
    222 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    By the time the Pacific arrives we will have had a whole year playing 'the fall of Europe' with only two factions on the battlefied. 🙄
    @grrlpurple its funny cose thats like all those American films that would make you believe that the Americans did all the work to win the war xD guess now the narrative is thats the British did
  • Trokey66
    8385 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    I don't t get this demand for 'better known' or 'iconic' battles.

    If the map, whether its location is accurate or ficticous, becomes irrelevant if it doesn't play well.
Sign In or Register to comment.